back to article Amazon warehouse workers in New York unionize in historic win against web giant

Amazon warehouse workers in New York City voted in favor of joining a trade union on Friday, marking the first-ever successful union campaign against the tech giant in its history. The election was held by staff at Amazon's JFK8 fulfillment center on Staten Island, New York: 2,654 votes were cast by the facility's workers in …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

    Which, of course, have nothing to do with the innapropriate and undue influence of Amazon managers going around and hinting forcefully that unionising would entail a pink slip.

    It's about time that Ronald Reagan's legacy on this point dies a final death. A direct relationship ? There is no such thing. On the one hand, there is the company, with its HR department and protocols and procedures. On the other hand, there is one employee. There is no such thing as equality in this scenario.

    A union is required to ensure that HR cannot unduly impress the employee with falsehoods to keep said employee quiet and obedient. But of course, that means the employee will have support to have his rights enforced, and that means money.

    So, obviously, Bezos does not agree even though he has enough money to double the salary of all his employees and he wouldn't even notice.

    1. goldcd

      Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

      I like the idea that amazon has to deal with a unionized workforce.

      Mainly as I like and want to use amazon, but I don't want that to be part of a system that legally has to grind down workers to legally appease their shareholders.

      Where I think the tech-bros are missing a trick, is harnessing their customers as part of the justification.

      Email me and give me a button to press, that lets me say I'm prepared to pay say 2% more to cover better benefits for their workers that fill the box and deliver it to my door.

      1. hayzoos

        Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

        I get it. We must pay more so the workers' pay is improved from slightly better than slave wages. Because shareholders and upper management cannot afford any reduction in compensation. Reduction of ludicrous profits is just not an option.

        1. Tom 7 Silver badge

          Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

          Ford had the sense to pay his workers enough to actually buy the things they produced. Its nice when your market is a lot larger!

          1. Phil Kingston

            Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

            More recently his company took billions of Australian government public dollars as subsidies to keep their manufacturing plants open and keep people employed.

            They cashed the cheques and closed the plants down anyway.

          2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

            "Ford had the sense to pay his workers enough to actually buy the things they produced."

            I make MRI machines. Why aren't I paid enough to buy an MRI machine?

            1. parlei

              Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

              Because MRI machines are not a consumer product?

              1. LybsterRoy Bronze badge

                Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

                Oh come on - just have a laugh to start the week as I did

            2. The Dogs Meevonks

              Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

              Looks like a lot of people need to purchase a sense of humour... have an upvote on me.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Henry Ford was a bastard

            He hired a armies of goons and thugs to beat up and terrorise his workforce when they unionised. He was also a raving anti-semite who thought the nazis had the right idea about Jews. It was largely a myth that he paid workers enough to be able to afford his cars. He paid above-average wages because it made the workforce more productive and less likely to take jobs elsewhere. This had the side-effect of making his cars more affordable for his employees.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Henry Ford was a bastard

              Pay above average wages, and get above average results, was a radical idea in it's day.

              Judging by Amazon, it's still radical, if not outright beyond the pale.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

        "I like the idea that amazon has to deal with a unionized workforce."

        In other parts of the world, Amazon already have to deal with a unionised workforce. They have no legal power to stop it happening, and are legally obliged to recognise them. I don't get why it's so different in the USA. Are companies really so afraid of their own employees? Are unions still run by or linked to the Mafia or other organised crime?

        1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

          Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

          Unions are 'socialism', universal healthcare is 'socialism', bailing out banks that caused the financial crash by printing more money and providing handouts wjth no strings attaches is 'good business practice'.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

          "I don't get why it's so different in the USA. "

          The US has very Pro-Union rules. Companies are strongly prohibited with interfering with union organizing (unless your name is Elon). In this case the ratio of for and against isn't far off 50/50 so there isn't a clear mandate that the workers really want to unionize. Unions in the US are very left wing. If you happen to be conservative, you probably don't want to be in a union.

          Working in a warehouse is a crap job. It's manual labor and made worse by clipboard toting managers that are also looking over their own shoulders at the clipboard toting vice presidents. To be required to pay a union whose policies you don't agree with to make just enough money to pay your "dues" and wind up with the same amount of new debt each month as you had previously might be galling.

          UPS in the US hires temp workers during the Christmas holiday to help deal with the shipping rush. It's middle of the night part time work and only for 6-8 weeks. It barely makes it worthwhile after the union initiation fees and dues are deducted from your paycheck. Since you aren't onboard long enough, you don't qualify for benefits. If they decide to strike while you are on, you are out on your backside and wind up losing your fees and dues. Should have got a job flipping burgers instead as it would have paid more.

          1. The Dogs Meevonks

            Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

            You really don't understand what unions are or cost. So here's a few things I found for the US and I'm not even from the US

            On average, union employees earn up to 15% more than their non-union co-workers, have better benefits and working conditions.

            The 'dues' are literally a few dollars of that extra income... a small percent of your extra 15% pay increase... so you literally only have a 13-14% increase instead of... what... lower wages, worse working condition, no benefits... degraded and forced to work long hours without adequate breaks and at risk of being fired for not meeting your quota for being exhausted all the time.

            You sound like a stereotypical anti-union shill, one who's swallowed the bullshit hook, lin, sinker and copy of angling times and just regurgitate it endlessley without any actual understanding of the words spewing forth from your face hole.

            1. M.V. Lipvig Bronze badge

              Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

              Unions in the US don't opetate like unions in other nations. I won't join a US union because I don't like the idea of my dues being given to strippers and politicians I don't like, nor do I like the idea of a union being willing to bankrupt the company I'm working for. I would probably join a European union.

        3. Youngone Silver badge

          Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

          Are companies really so afraid of their own employees?

          In the case of the huge corporation I work for, yes.

        4. deadlockvictim

          Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

          JB(nb)» Are unions still run by or linked to the Mafia or other organised crime?

          Wow, just wow.

      3. LybsterRoy Bronze badge

        Re: Not an unequivocal union fan - but I applaud this

        I would agree with you but for the fact that I've seen sufficient instances where the union is a great way for the union officials to get paid loads-a-money and little else.

      4. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: give me a button to press...

        ...that lets me say I'm prepared to pay say 2% more to cover better benefits

        You were replying to a comment that finished with: "Bezos does not agree even though he has enough money to double the salary of all his employees and he wouldn't even notice."

        There is no shortage of money at Amazon, they can afford to pay people fairly. The fact they don't is not connected to cost.

    2. Dr. Vagmeister

      Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

      I would not expect Bezos to be the sole reason for the situation in Amazon.

      There will be many people between him and the lower management who are driving the business the way that they are doing as their salary and bonus are thoroughly dependent upon it.

      I have from experience seen people in lower management positions, brown nosing with managers a few grades above them, moving desks to be near them, marking down people with no evidence,cancelling their pay rise and reducing their bonus, paying out of their own pocket to go to meetings to show that they are a "company person" who can make hard decisions. There are c*nts at every level, willing to poop upon others to climb the greasy pole solely for their own benefit. It is the culture we live in.

      1. nintendoeats Silver badge

        Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

        "In so much as a company wants anything, it wants what it incentivizes." - Dan luu

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

        "There will be many people between him and the lower management who are driving the business the way that they are doing as their salary and bonus are thoroughly dependent upon it."

        Considering how Amazon started, I suspect this is a company culture fostered right from day one of the founding of Amazon. There is an overwhelming disdain for the bottom ring workers and a desperate need for profit at any cost because that's the sort of people the growing Amazon hired.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

          "There is an overwhelming disdain for the bottom ring workers and a desperate need for profit at any cost because that's the sort of people the growing Amazon hired."

          That's what is taught in the most prestigious business schools. If you've been sent to a top university by your parents for a business degree, you are likely from a family with means that already knows all about modern feudalism.

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

        "I would not expect Bezos to be the sole reason for the situation in Amazon."

        Jeff Bezos is so inextricably linked to Amazon that very few remember that he stepped down from management in July of 2021. His salary at that time was around $88k/year. I expect his "compensation" was much more, but he made his money on stock. The value of the stock has been bid up by other people bidding up the price, not by grinding the faces of the workers. I don't care for their business practices so I don't buy anything through them. I can often find better deals elsewhere.

        I believe there is an upper limit to the size of a company before it's too big to be useful. Amazon has blown way past that. Too many unscrupulous middle managers clawing their way up, no way to provide customer service worth a damn and too much weight being thrown around to the detriment of every business around them. If a company is too big to fail, it should be too big to be allowed. Economy of scale maxes out into "too many eggs in one basket". If one bank failing means a significant hit to a country's GDP, it needs to be cut down to size, not propped up.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

          The value of the stock has been bid up by other people bidding up the price, not by grinding the faces of the workers.

          One of the reasons people buy Amazon stock is the level of profit the company makes by "minimising overheads", a euphemism for treating its employees like shit.

          1. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

            You *do* realise that the vast majority of the company's profit comes from the thing that costs the least, right? No, it's not the countless warehouses with those pesky humans who demand to be treated and paid better... it's Amazon Web Services.

            AWS's profits constitute more than 63% of the total profit Amazon Inc made. But yeah, the biggest market for Amazon as tat bazaar (to coin @El Reg's phrase) is North America, so that's where the majority of their tat bazaar profit comes from.

            I wonder why... could it... just maybe... be the warehouse slaves being treated as such there, whereas in Europe and elsewhere they get a better deal?

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

      It's about time that Ronald Reagan's legacy on this point dies a final death.

      WHAT the hell is THAT supposed to mean? Do not forget, Ronald Reagan WAS a Union guy! (He was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild to be precise)

      As far as I am concerned, if Amazon's warehouse employment conditions are SO bad that a union needs to be formed to rectify that problem, then THEY totally screwed the pooch on managing their warehouses.

      Ideally you make the conditions equivalent to a union shop so that people do not bother with unions. It becomes a better place to work, enough that people do not want it to change, and you get happier employees that ideally work harder. A labor union, however, will take money from employers and employees as a kind of "middle man" so ultimately they cost more.

      But if an employer wants to use the union for H.R. and training, they can make unions and management a winning combination. That depends both on the union and on the management to make that work (as it does in many places, though, so it CAN work well).

      But I suspect that this new union will be more like Teamsters or one of the other "not so nice" power-grab politically motivated unions.

      1. R Soul

        Do not forget, Ronald Reagan WAS a Union guy!

        He was so much of a union guy he fired America's air traffic controllers when they went on strike for better pay and conditions. Reagan was an FBI snitch when he was SAG president.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: Do not forget, Ronald Reagan WAS a Union guy!

          As I recall the air traffic controller's union had it in their contract NOT to strike.

          And there was apparently (along with an existing law) a federal judge who ordered them back to work (essential services for national security or similar) and they violated that order. THAT is why they were fired. See link. The article says it better.

          You really should get ALL of the facts on this. Seriously. You're welcome. Omitting key details is sometimes called "lying by omission". But I give YOU the benefit of the doubt in not having a good information source (i.e. YOU were lied to about it somewhere up the line).

          As for "FBI Snitch" what proof do you have? (I think that's just typical anti-Reagan propaganda)

      2. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: "objections based on the inappropriate and undue influence"

        I thought Reagan's main engagement as actor was being part of the "Denounce a commie" society?

  2. skeptical i
    Thumb Up

    Good.

    If Amazon could have replaced flesh-and-blood employees with robots and still make a ginormous wodge of profit, it would have done so by now. It hasn't. Now Amazon will be forced to treat employees -- at least those at JFK8 -- with a smidge more of the respect due the workers that allow such profits to happen. As was suggested above, it's not as if Mr. Bezos will be forced to miss yacht payments in order to cover higher employees wages and benefits. I hope this is the first of many Amazon facilities to go union. Well done.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Good.

      "I hope this is the first of many Amazon facilities to go union. Well done."

      Maybe they should second some UK or EU Amazon management over to the US to teach the local managers how deal constructively with unions instead of assuming all unions are the spawn of Satan and must always be treated as the enemy?

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Good.

        But they *are* the spawn of Satan if you're a money grabbing manager who want to screw your employees as much as possible.

        You could argue that constructive engagement with the unions and staff would get happier and more productive employees, but for big companies with very many layers of management (especially in America) it's short term profits that count. Long term investments in staff don't get them the yearly bonuses they want.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trickle-down economics

    Usually it’s just the powerful pissing on the workers.

    The Union makes us strong!!

    1. Trigun

      Re: Trickle-down economics

      Everything in balance. Having unions can be good (and looks to be very much needed in Amazons case), as long as it's not taken too far: 1970's in the UK, if you know what I mean.

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

        Re: Trickle-down economics

        But the trouble is... its gone way too far for way too long in the direction of companies...

        Just look at P&O firing 800 people and hiring 800 to replace them at way lower wages in order to save 100 million quid when the company has made share dividend payments way in excess of that...

        Also as a bonus, customers are looking away from P&O and 2 3? boats cant sail because they have not got a crew trained enough to man said ferries...

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          So will the new workers be told to "train at home" by watching YouTube videos about loading a ferry and heading out to sea? Will we hear a worker on the news in a few months saying, "Oh, I didn't lock the doors at the back, sorry."?

          That's an example of "Trickle-down economics" ... I hope the icon on this post never has to change!

          1. Falmari Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            @Version 1.0 ""Oh, I didn't lock the doors at the back, sorry."?"

            In that case it is not really a trickle.

            I would say it is an example of "Sinking-down to the bottom economics". ;)

            1. Atomic Duetto

              Re: Trickle-down economics

              Race to the bottom service delivery

      2. Dr. Vagmeister

        Re: Trickle-down economics

        I think it is funny when people repeatedly (not you) bring up the 1970's as if we should be careful of unions. That was over 40 years ago, and people (Tory politicians) still use it to scare others.

        What is also surprising is that people in the US do not seem able to join a union without consent of Amazon - maybe it is just the recognition of a union by Amazon ?

        Unions make little difference now, in the UK. We have fire and rehire in multiple cases, and the unions did not really do anything, and the Tories either talks out the bill to ban it, or a few weeks ago, voted against it. Leadsom (Tory) last week on Politics Live said fire and rehire was a necessity, else businesses will fail. It really is not about businesses failing, but greed by corporations.

        1. Falmari Silver badge

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          @Dr. Vagmeister “I think it is funny when people repeatedly (not you) bring up the 1970's as if we should be careful of unions. That was over 40 years ago, and people (Tory politicians) still use it to scare others.”.

          While I agree with you that does not mean we should forget the lessons of the 1970s.

          I worked for a major car manufacturer in the 70s which operated a closed shop as did their competitors. I was required to join a Union the day I started employment with them. Now I had no problem joining a Union. In fact, I remained with that union throughout my career in engineering whether an employer required or recognised Union membership or not.

          My problem was that I had no choice, and that part of my dues went to a political party. Also, in the three years I was there we had only one strike. Not because of a local grievance, or a grievance at another of the company’s plants, or even within the automotive industry. We were called out on strike at a national level.

          So yes, the power of Unions has been restricted to much and that needs to change. But we must remember that it is possible for them to have too much power.

          No employer should be allowed to stop an employee joining a union neither should an employee be forced to join a union.

          1. SImon Hobson Silver badge

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            Indeed. Back then SOME of the unions were the unions' worst enemies. Carry On At Your Convenience should be required viewing, being a good slapstick send up of the problems caused when a union has too much power.

          2. Dr. Vagmeister

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            I agree that no one should be forced to do anything, and that unions must not have too much power.

            With the UK at the moment, anything that is seen as a threat to the Tory party ideology, the usual scare tactics are used such as the unions of the 1970's, or people are labelled lefty etc. as a derogatory meaning. I do not see this challenged in the media, to the point that the issue of nationalisation is never discussed for fear of being called a socialist or communist (mainly the forums).

            1. tiggity Silver badge

              Re: Trickle-down economics

              Oh the dreadful 1970s in the UK.

              When a working class couple could afford to buy their own home on a mortgage.

              When they could afford to do that with just one wage earner, and also run a car.

              .. Obviously we are not in the 1970s now in the UK...

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            "neither should an employee be forced to join a union."

            Now that I think about it, I wonder if that's part of the US problem with unions? ISTR seeing a documentory about large building projects, and at least some of the teams of workers were union teams. often father/son pairs in the teams. And you hire the whole team, not just some employees or contractors. It sounds like the ultimate closed shop. Not only do you have to be a union member to get the job, you need to be family or friend of a member just to get in.

          4. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            part of my dues went to a political party

            One major set of reforms, which may not be universal in the USA (but is apparently common), includes the ability to NOT contribute that portion of union dues when it is used for political purposes.

            In many other cases it supports "right to work" where you do not have to be a union member, and the regulations on that vary but in essence you would still pay for benefits through the union but not for anything else.

            In a way that is VERY good when the unions are forced to make themselves valuable to employees in order to keep them as members.

            (I am against political contributions by unions and corporations anyway - INCLUDING "contributions in kind" which takes MANY forms)

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Trickle-down economics

              "In a way that is VERY good when the unions are forced to make themselves valuable to employees in order to keep them as members."

              I totally agree with that. Closed shops are what lead to unions corruption and abuse of power. They should be regulated like businesses such that they need to have something the "customer" wants if they want to continue to exist and be relevant. Things have changed a lot since the days of The Tolpuddle Martyrs, thankfully. (On the other hand, a free trip to Australia might not be such a bad thing these days :-))

        2. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          "What is also surprising is that people in the US do not seem able to join a union without consent of Amazon - maybe it is just the recognition of a union by Amazon ?"

          The different parts of the country have different rules, but in most cases, it's whether the union has legal power or just the power of its members. If you and I work at Amazon and say we're a union, that's allowed and we can plan or act together, but we don't get to make our union the one that Amazon has to negotiate with. If we want them to have a requirement to negotiate, that takes a vote. In some cases, it can also make the union cover all the workers in the area, but this is not always the case.

          1. Tom 7 Silver badge

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            Unions in Germany are on the board. Strangely they have far higher productivity there than any non-unionised places! Its almost as if you arent a dick to people they wont be a dick to you!

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Trickle-down economics

              Yes - many examples exist where management and union work together for a win-win situation.

              If i were to start up a warehouse or factory, part of the "cost analysis" would involve the unions, who could provide trained employees at a known cost along with HR, hiring, firing, and training. Coupled with costs associated with locations, they could be VERY helpful in making a successful factory/warehouse/whatever where you minimize cost while also retain quality employees that get the job done.

              LOTS of costs associated with these things, some less apparent than others.

        3. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          Quite how you expect unions to resolve fire and rehire I have no idea, given their pet party does it.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-fire-and-rehire-keir-starmer-david-evans-b1889879.html

          Unions are on balance terrible. I hope Amazon responds by closing that warehouse.

          1. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: Trickle-down economics

            @Cederic

            It may have escaped your notice, but the Starmer labour party is essentially just Red Tory, about as socialist as a self centred pet cat.

            Many unions seriously thinking about disassociation (e.g. BFAWU already have) from Labour, many are reducing donations to them (Unite the biggest name to be doing that)

            Unions on balance are a force for good - e.g. plenty of health & safety rules driven by union action (but you probably regard that as "Pesky red tape", and that the shareholder returns outweigh the odd workplace maiming or fatality)

        4. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          U.S. laws require companies to respect unionization, to the best of my knowledge. There might be some regulations there, such as a vote of employees and other formalities, but essentially Amazon can not stop it and if the employee unionize, they cannot be fired over it.

        5. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          I think it is funny when people repeatedly (not you) bring up the 1970's as if we should be careful of unions.

          That's because some of us lived through the 70s and can remember what it was like. The unions were essentially used as pawns in a struggle between the Left and the Right - often with no thought for the actual workers involved.

      3. Fred Dibnah

        Re: Trickle-down economics

        Companies get the unions they deserve. In the 1970s companies such as Ford & British Leyland had terrible bullying management, & they had endless industrial disputes with their unions as a result.

        If a company is run well & its employees are treated with respect, there is little or no need for the employees to form a union.

      4. Tom 7 Silver badge

        Re: Trickle-down economics

        The unions in the 70s were merely asking for wages that covered the massive increase in the cost of living due to OPEC raising the oil price. The tories basically managed to blame them for something that happened in the Middle East and the poor idiot voters believed them. We're going to be seeing a lot of that coming soon due to brexit and Russia. If you can explain to me why someone has to run their lives at a loss working for a company simply because the company thinks it has a right to their cheap labour I'm sure I could do with the belly laugh your explanation would give me.

      5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Trickle-down economics

        "Everything in balance. Having unions can be good (and looks to be very much needed in Amazons case), as long as it's not taken too far: 1970's in the UK, if you know what I mean."

        You're spot on. What happened in the UK wasn't just about strong unions and the leaders being dicks. They only got that power because the members were being treated like shit in many cases so the unions had "grievances" to rally the members round. Where it works well is when the bosses aren't being greedy at the expense of the workers. In that situation, the union doesn't have as much power, but is there to support the members as and when required. Unfortunately, because the power swung so far to the Unions side back then, we have some pretty strict laws hog-tying the unions to some extent now. I'm not sure exactly where the balance is at the moment, but I feels it's more in favour of the employers than the unions. On the other hand, we still have some pretty decent employee rights legislation on the books (for now, anyway), which on the whole maintains the balance. P&O may think they found a loophole, but it's looking like the law courts will get to decide if the loophole is real or not.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Trickle-down economics

          "P&O may think they found a loophole:"

          Nope. Their CEO confirmed they'd intentionally broken the law. The company calculated they wouldn't get prosecuted - not unreasonable in Boris the Buffoon's Britain - or if they did, the fine would be peanuts.

          As for the "pretty decent employee rights legislation", think again. This has done fuck all to protect the P&O workforce who lost their jobs. Or the new workforce who are paid less than the minimum wage. Then there are the so-called gig economy jobs and zero-hours contracts which shit all over the poor sods who take them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trickle-down economics

      > The Union makes us strong!!

      Yesh, worked so well for P&O, didn't it?

      With good management you don't need unions, with bad management they don't help.

  4. DF118
    Coffee/keyboard

    "we believe having a direct relationship with the company is best for our employees"

    ODFO

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: "we believe having a direct relationship with the company is best for our employees"

      "Divide et impera"

  5. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    To summarise...

    ..."If you have a boss, you need a union".

    1. Don Dumb

      Re: To summarise...

      Yep, the best reason for Amazon's staff having a union is that Amazon didn't want its staff to have a union.

    2. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: To summarise...

      I don't get that.

      It's bad enough that I'm having to pay extortionate amounts of my income to fund the unions damaging the health service, damaging the civil service and damaging the UK. I'm certainly not going to create a whole new direct relationship with one.

      Why would I need to pay someone to interfere with my relationship with my boss, making my working conditions worse, stifle my chances of progression, make it harder for my employer to be successful and fund political parties I don't support?

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

        Re: To summarise...

        Because your boss could just walk upto you and say

        "We're firing you at 5pm and hiring you on new terms at 8am tommorrow, you dont like the terms , dont turn up"

        Now for an IT professional (or any highly qualified worker) that could be ok , since the skills you have means you'll be in demand

        For a minimal wage warehouse worker struggling to survive as is, any cut in wages will push him/her into debt.

        So you say "Hey this is unfair"

        Boss turns round and says "we have 20 $250 000/yr lawyers on our side....and we can bankrupt you in lawyers fees even before you get anywhere near a court"

        Still think you dont need a union......

        1. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: To summarise...

          The minimal wage warehouse worker should demand employment protection regulations or move to a jurisdiction that already has them.

          That the law doesn't prevent the situation you describe is hardly an advertisement for unions that have clearly failed to get the law changed. It basically confirms that the unions are looking out for themselves and not for workers.

          1. 42656e4d203239 Bronze badge
            Facepalm

            Re: To summarise...

            >>The minimal wage warehouse worker should demand employment protection regulations or move to a jurisdiction that already has them.

            Have you ever been a minimal wage worker? both your suggestions require resources not generally available to those workers, hence the need for a union.

          2. Swarthy Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: To summarise...

            The minimal wage warehouse worker should demand employment protection regulations
            That is exactly what a Union is for!

        2. andy gibson

          Re: To summarise...

          Unions haven't really helped the P&O workers though have they?

          1. Lars Silver badge

            Re: To summarise...

            "Unions haven't really helped the P&O workers though have they".

            Did they belong to a union?.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: To summarise...

        Why would I need to pay someone to interfere with my relationship with my boss, making my working conditions worse, stifle my chances of progression, make it harder for my employer to be successful and fund political parties I don't support?

        You're delusional.

        If your boss (or their boss) is a bastard - which is quite likely - you may be grateful having a union representative who can intercede on your behalf on a whole raft of employment issues. Besides, union dues will be far cheaper than paying for your own lawyer.

        Please cite how a union makes your "working conditions worse or stifles your chance of progression". Whatever that means. Suppose your employer demanded 80+ hour working weeks, offered no sick pay or holidays, didn't provide training or a safe working environment, used discriminatory employment and promotion policies, etc, etc. Collective bargaining by trade unions over the last 100 years or more have mostly put a stop to those evils. It's also much easier for employers to sack or fuck over non-union workers because they have nobody to stand up for them. You might learn that lesson the hard way when your employer next downsizes or restructures itself.

        Your claim of funding political parties you don't support is utter bollocks. The political levy on union dues has been optional for at least 30 years and these days you have to opt-in if you want to pay it.

        1. LybsterRoy Bronze badge

          Re: To summarise...

          I've worked in both unionised and non-unionised environments. What I remember is generally speaking people were people but in the unionised environment rules were rules. Mandatory tea breaks - don't you dare work during them, demarcation - you can't move that small box from goods in to inspection so it can get to that stopped production line a bit faster - wait for Fred to get back from his tea break and move all those pallet loads of stuff that aren't needed till next week. etc etc

        2. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: To summarise...

          If my boss was a bastard I'd tell her boss to sack her. Although I did interview both of them before taking the job, and had confidence that they weren't. They aren't.

          re: "Suppose your employer demanded.." Well, no, they don't demand that. They legally can't demand that, and they have internal structures in place to make sure that everybody obeys the law. Even if they didn't I can call on any number of external bodies to intervene.

          Which backwards hellhole do you work in that such basic things aren't already legally mandated?

          1. Swarthy Silver badge

            Re: To summarise...

            And do you know why those things are legally mandated? It wasn't from the corporations good will, nor from a politician's altruism. It was from unions banding together to close an industry if those abuses continued.

            Ditto for not being paid in company script (yes, there are laws that require a company to pay in actual negotiable currency - because there had to be) and the people arguing for that simple right were frequently demonized and shot for their "socialist" views.

          2. J. Cook Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: To summarise...

            Which backwards hellhole do you work in that such basic things aren't already legally mandated?

            Many states in the US are what are called "at will" states, and yes, they can do that. On the flip side of it, there's nothing saying that the employee(s) can go and tell the company they are working for to pound sand and walk out. (assuming they have something better already lined up...)

  6. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    A quiet rant about unions

    A quiet rant about unions.

    What would have become of Europe without trade unions, what would have become of the Nordic countries without them, and what could have become of Britain if it was a "many party system" and not that ridiculous outdated two party system where anything trade union is associated with politics and the left.

    Funny the name too, in the USA it's a labor union and of course it has to be something else in Britain, labour would not cut it, understandably.

    It should be obvious for anybody that if pilots or seamen or firefighters or Postal workers or sheep farmers or carrot growers or ..... Then that is about people who have come together to achieve common goals, such as protecting the integrity of their trade, improving safety standards, and attaining better wages, benefits (such as vacation, health care, and retirement), and working conditions through the increased bargaining power wielded by solidarity among members and other unions.

    Amazing how often in the anglosphere this is associated with socialism and communism and what not, and it's even funnier when you realize that trade unions in those systems had power only against its own members. A type of trade union Bezos might dream of, should he be the one he seems to be.

    And of course the "1970's in the UK" had to come up, but I would claim none of that would have become that "militant" with a coalition government of several parties and quite frankly the dear old lady was quite militant herself.

    I had to copy this by a Brit, as I agree, although point 3 is a bit beyond me. (as a programmer you learn the value of copy/paste).

    I'd say there are three elements of England's unusually entrenched exceptionalism:

    1) failure to reform our electoral system in line with nearly every other advanced democracy:

    2) failure to modernise practices and procedures in Westminster that basically date back to the 19th Century &

    3) the over-prominence in the English psyche of the significance and status of monarchy.

    It seems to me, and it's your own falt, both in the USA and Britain, that a two party system with a one party government will find it hard to achieve what many European countries have managed in accepting trade unions as part of the system. And that is simply because it's competition for a one party government unable to cooperate unless forced to.

    Quoting the Wikipedia on the Nordic model:

    "support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility, a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages, labour market policy is mediated by the government,[9] and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy,".

    I very much doubt we in all the Nordic countries would earn more per capita than the British without having accepted and understood the value of trade unions.

    Sometimes listening to both Americans and Brits you get this feeling that they genuinely believe half, not my half, but that other half, have plans to destroy the whole country.

    I think I know what deficiency of the system has created that illusion.

    What took place at Amazon is a step in the right direction.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: A quiet rant about unions

      "Sometimes listening to both Americans and Brits you get this feeling that they genuinely believe half, not my half, but that other half, have plans to destroy the whole country."

      While I agree with pretty much everything you say, I feel the quoted point above is changing. The US seems to be growing more and more politically polarised while the UK, a generation or two after the demise of the big unions and the big industries, seems to be mellowing a little.

      eg, I'm in a area which until relatively recently, would have voted a stuffed dog in so long as it had a red Labour Party badge. The "workers" were staunchly Labour, no matter what. Their kids grew up indoctrinated the same way. The grandkids, however, seem to be voting more along the lines of what's best for them. My local MP is still Labour, but margins are much reduced.

    2. Fred Dibnah
      Thumb Up

      Re: A quiet rant about unions

      Well said, especially items 1, 2, and 3.

  7. Barry Rueger
    Coat

    The boss is not your friend. Ever.

    I have worked in union and non-union shops, and have sat on bargaining committees as both employee and employer.

    When I have hired people, or have been hired as a boss, I always begin by telling my staff that they need to understand that at the end of the day I'm not their equal. If the company is failing they'll be the ones tossed out the door before I go. It's a sad reality that my primary job is not to support weak employees, or coddle them when they're feeling down, it's to run a company.

    In fact I do support weak employees, and coddle them when they're feeling down, but that's because I'm a decent human being, and I do care about them, and besides I believe that happy and healthy employees will ultimately lead to more profits.

    Honestly the only thing that has ever improved the lot of employees has been trade unions. Neither corporations or governments have ever had the back of the working people.

    (That's my jacket with the employer's hand in the pocket)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Amazons options?

    1) Close down JFK8. Write it off as a loss. Huge loss, but if not:

    2) Slowly see every other amazon warehouse across America unionize.

    Thoughts?

    1. Winkypop Silver badge
      Megaphone

      Re: Amazons options?

      1. Amazon accept freedom of choice and association.

      2. Amazon pay a living wage and provide fair conditions.

      3. Unions become unnecessary unless 1 and or 2 fail.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Megaphone

        Re: Amazons options?

        4. Amazon buys more warehouse robots

        5. "Grunt" level employees are laid off, being replaced by robots

        6. A portion of the laid off employees are re-hired as 'managers', no longer blue collar, no longer in the union

        That possibility exists as well. The union should be wary of it. If they price themselves out of work this WILL happen.

        1. Falmari Silver badge

          Re: Amazons options?

          Sorry Bob, but 4, 5 and six 6 not options.

          4 and 5 are a goal (producing more for less manpower) and will happen with or without unionisation. Since the industrial revolution employers both big and small have continually advanced this goal producing more and more for less and less man hours.

          Through the use of mechanisation, automation, production lines, through to computerisation and robots.

          Why would 6 happen, surely with less employees they require less manages not more. Robots can’t require more managers than people, can they?

          1. Fred Daggy Bronze badge
            Unhappy

            Re: Amazons options?

            Clearly you've never been to a meeting at our company. 7 or more managers. 1 worker lumped with doing everything.

            Let me re-write that. 7 freeloaders that get the backslaps and the bonuses with 1 donkey that gets squat.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Amazons options?

        I was not asking what they should do ethically, but what their options are from their point of view.

        Your points are meaningless, because that's not how Amazon operates. You could just as validly post that Amazon gives all their staff a pink unicorn.

        Now, again, in the real world, what are their options, in their minds?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Close down JFK8

      That's not a viable option. Amazon's supply and delivery operations are so finely tuned, they will be seriously disrupted by relocating a distribution centre. Even if it could be built nearby and populated with tat and droids overnight. Which it can't. Meanwhile, Amazon's customers in New York (a major revenue source) would be getting their stuff delivered late or not at all. Which is very bad for business.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Close down JFK8

        Thanks for the informative reply.

        Do you think if it wasn't such an important hub, they would take that action? It's a sure-fire way to ensure other outlets don't unionize.

    3. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Re: Slowly see every other amazon warehouse across America unionize

      From whose perspective are you asking?

      This would only be a problem for Amazon. Not its workers. And it's only a problem if Amazon continues trying to make it a problem, instead of accepting US employment law and fixing the problems causing workers to unionise in the first place.

      If Amazon didn't treat its workers like such utter shit, the vast majority of workers wouldn't feel the need to unionise. Simple as that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Slowly see every other amazon warehouse across America unionize

        No, I agree entirely with you. I was talking about from Amazons perspective. I was just curious if such a dick move would be something they'd consider.

  9. Grunchy Bronze badge

    I worked at Canadian Freightways under the union. One time they noticed I hadn’t been paying enough union dues. The union took my entire next paycheque and most of the following too. This was the Truckdriver’s union, they didn’t stop until the American parent, Consolidated Freightways, went bankrupt! One day they made a concession to management, and they were going to eliminate all the after-hours student positions, which was precisely one position: mine. I asked my co-worker, Frank, who was the shop steward, how could this happen? His answer: well, you never went to any of the meetings! Well, Frank, how could I go, they were all held “after hours,” precisely when I was doing the evening office work! Frank’s answer: Shrugs! Was nice working with you anyway!

    I actually work at Amazon today, doing deliveries for one of the associate delivery groups. It’s the structure they put in place to keep out the very same Trucker’s Union. The rolling stock is brand new, top quality (some argument about which is better, Ford or Dodge). But the outfit is run on a razor margin. They only just started to turn a profit in recent years. There are definite barriers to entry for competitors, allowing Amazon to build up a good monopoly. Unionization will drive up their costs which will inevitably raise their prices. Once the prices are high enough, non-union competitors will be able to wiggle their way in through that crack, and topple that tower. The best part of driving is the 20,000+ days on the FitBit, a bit of physical conditioning and opportunity to drop some flab. I cannot wait to get a real job again though, the summer heat is fast approaching!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "One time they noticed I hadn’t been paying enough union dues. The union took my entire next paycheque and most of the following too."

      You're blaming your union for your companies payroll department error and decisions?

      Obviously the payroll department made a mistake and didn't give a shite about you getting nothing on payday. Don't blame the union for someone else's mistakes.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If a company can't afford to pay a proper wage, they shouldn't be in business. Lack of healthcare and proper unemployment benefits shouldn't be used by a company to blackmail people into slave jobs.

      If they do provide a proper wage, and proper conditions, they have no reason to fear unions.

  10. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    Isn't this a non-event? Group of people choose to be in a group.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ever heard of America?!!

  11. Buttons

    There are more of us than there are of them.

    I started working in the 70's and experienced my first redundancy under a union in the early 80's. The conditions were good, incentive schemes, proper training, healthcare, overtime, I worked with a great team in a global business. The redundancy payments were great and the business helped staff to get other work, either internally or externally. I've always thought this was a gold standard.

    Even during that time unions were becoming a pariah so much so that people were avoiding joining one. The next business I worked for had very similar standards but no-one wanted to be in a union, it was felt to be career limiting. 15 years later, another great redundancy payout and a change to working in IT.

    Since the first job I've never again worked in an environment that was unionised, and to my perception working conditions have gotten worse. Coincedentally, the changes coincided with changes to employment laws and the rise of HR.

    In one role I was transferred under TUPE to another business and told to be at their office at 9 a.m. for work every day. The office was 150 miles away. When I protested I was made redundant and the renumeration was minimal. I underwent a period when working for another firm where every single detail of my work was scrutinised and criticised and when that failed I was diciplined for not achieving unachievable tasks. Heading towards retirement anyway, I left.

    SInce then I've been working a series of 'Zero' hours jobs. One of these was at a college who changed the terms of my contract to the extent that my wages were reduced. On complaining I was ignored and when I looked into it I discoved that the grievance procedure was run by the college for the college. Not much chance for a single employee to get their point across, without representation on their own, given that the organisation marks its own homework.

    It has always puzzled me why it is that people do not realise that it is in their best interests to organise for mutual benefit, because there are so many more of us than there are of them.

    I'll end with a quote from a fellow gig economy colleague when we were discussing the state of the nation, as people invariably do. "I vote Tory, my family votes Tory and we've been working class all our lives." The other puzzle is why do people need to blindly follow an idea or dogma?

    1. cmdrklarg

      Re: There are more of us than there are of them.

      **** The other puzzle is why do people need to blindly follow an idea or dogma?

      Because there are many people out there who don't think. They may be intelligent, but thinking is hard. Much simpler to regurgitate whatever BS they are told.

  12. andy gibson

    voting stats

    So out of 8,300 workers, only half bothered to vote?

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: voting stats

      @andy gibson

      .. From what I have read in reports about this there was a lot of implicit (careful to leave no paper trail) pressure from Amazon for people to vote against union (and if worker worried about their colleagues finding out they voted against, the less guilty option is not to vote).

      Plus a few rumours about the "banned words" in Amazon internal app flying around https://slashdot.org/story/22/04/05/1349259/new-amazon-worker-chat-app-will-ban-words-like-union-restrooms-pay-raise-and-plantation?sdsrc=nextbtmprev

      (UK spin here as I'm UK based) - there's plenty of local elections coming up in May in UK, lots of those will be struggling tto get a 50% ish turnout. Lots of people are apathetic, for all sorts of votes... Why some places, like Oz, make election votes compulsory as a way to get decent turnout.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

  • Bank of Google? Not exactly. But fintech's future is in Big Tech's ecosystems
    Silicon Valley and financial institutions may be increasingly inseparable

    Comment For all their differences, the biggest tech companies share one thing in common: They don't like to stay in their lane. 

    In the more than 20 years we've evolved alongside Apple, Google and Amazon, and the slightly less than 20 we've lived with Facebook, each has branched into areas different from their founding purpose.

    Cloud services, ecommerce, hardware and advertising have variously cropped up to displace original businesses, and in recent years, the news has shifted to will-they-won't-they discussions of whether big tech is looking to enter the financial services space. 

    Continue reading
  • Amazon fears it could run out of US warehouse workers by 2024
    Internal research says the hiring pool has already dried up in a number of locations stateside

    Jeff Bezos once believed that Amazon's low-skill worker churn was a good thing as a long-term workforce would mean a "march to mediocrity." He may have to eat his words if an internal memo is accurate.

    First reported by Recode, the company's 2021 research rather bluntly says: "If we continue business as usual, Amazon will deplete the available labor supply in the US network by 2024."

    Some locations will be hit much earlier, with the Phoenix metro area in Arizona expected to exhaust its available labor pool by the end of 2021. The Inland Empire region of California could reach breaking point by the close of this year, according to the research.

    Continue reading
  • Amazon shows off robot warehouse workers that won't complain, quit, unionize...
    Mega-corp insists it's all about 'people and technology working safely and harmoniously together'

    Amazon unveiled its first "fully autonomous mobile robot" and other machines designed to operate alongside human workers at its warehouses.

    In 2012 the e-commerce giant acquired Kiva Systems, a robotics startup, for $775 million. Now, following on from that, Amazon has revealed multiple prototypes powered by AI and computer-vision algorithms, ranging from robotic grippers to moving storage systems, that it has developed over the past decade. The mega-corporation hopes to put them to use in warehouses one day, ostensibly to help staff lift, carry, and scan items more efficiently. 

    Its "autonomous mobile robot" is a disk-shaped device on wheels, and resembles a Roomba. Instead of hoovering crumbs, the machine, named Proteus, carefully slots itself underneath a cart full of packages and pushes it along the factory floor. Amazon said Proteus was designed to work directly with and alongside humans and doesn't have to be constrained to specific locations caged off for safety reasons. 

    Continue reading
  • Amazon can't channel the dead, but its deepfake voices take a close second
    Megacorp shows Alexa speaking like kid's deceased grandma

    In the latest episode of Black Mirror, a vast megacorp sells AI software that learns to mimic the voice of a deceased woman whose husband sits weeping over a smart speaker, listening to her dulcet tones.

    Only joking – it's Amazon, and this is real life. The experimental feature of the company's virtual assistant, Alexa, was announced at an Amazon conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday.

    Rohit Prasad, head scientist for Alexa AI, described the tech as a means to build trust between human and machine, enabling Alexa to "make the memories last" when "so many of us have lost someone we love" during the pandemic.

    Continue reading
  • Workers win vote to form first-ever US Apple Store union
    Results set to be ratified by labor board by end of the week

    Workers at an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland have voted to form a union, making them the first of the iGiant's retail staff to do so in the United States.

    Out of 110 eligible voters, 65 employees voted in support of unionization versus 33 who voted against it. The organizing committee, known as the Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), has now filed to certify the results with America's National Labor Relations Board. Members joining this first-ever US Apple Store union will be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

    "I applaud the courage displayed by CORE members at the Apple store in Towson for achieving this historic victory," IAM's international president Robert Martinez Jr said in a statement on Saturday. "They made a huge sacrifice for thousands of Apple employees across the nation who had all eyes on this election."

    Continue reading
  • Amazon not happy with antitrust law targeting Amazon
    We assume the world's smallest violin is available right now on Prime

    Updated Amazon has blasted a proposed antitrust law that aims to clamp down on anti-competitive practices by Big Tech.

    The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) led by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and House Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) is a bipartisan bill, with Democrat and Republican support in the Senate and House. It is still making its way through Congress.

    The bill [PDF] prohibits certain "online platforms" from unfairly promoting their own products and services in a way that prevents or hampers third-party businesses in competing. Said platforms with 50 million-plus active monthly users in the US or 100,000-plus US business users, and either $550 billion-plus in annual sales or market cap or a billion-plus worldwide users, that act as a "critical trading partner" for suppliers would be affected. 

    Continue reading
  • Threat of cross-border data tariffs looms over WTO
    Some countries call for moratorium to be lifted, tech industry not keen on potential costs

    Concern is growing that a World Trade Organization (WTO) moratorium on cross-border tariffs covering data may not be extended, which would hit e-commerce if countries decide to introduce such tariffs.

    Representatives of the WTO's 164 members are meeting in Geneva as part of a multi-day ministerial conference. June 15 was to be the final day but the trade organization today confirmed it is being extended until June 16, to facilitate outcomes on the main issues under discussion.

    The current moratorium covering e-commerce tariffs was introduced in 1998, and so far the WTO has extended it at such meetings, which typically take place every two years.

    Continue reading
  • Alibaba Cloud challenges AWS with its own custom smartNIC
    Who'll board the custom silicon bandwagon next?

    Alibaba Cloud offered a peek at its latest homegrown silicon at its annual summit this week, which it calls Cloud Infrastructure Processing Units (CIPU).

    The data processing units (DPUs), which we're told have already been deployed in a “handful” of the Chinese giant’s datacenters, offload virtualization functions associated with storage, networking, and security from the host CPU cores onto dedicated hardware.

    “The rapid increase in data volume and scale, together with higher demand for lower latency, call for the creation of new tech infrastructure,” Alibaba Cloud Intelligence President Jeff Zhang said in a release.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft pledges neutrality on unions for Activision staff
    Now can we just buy them, please?

    Microsoft isn't wasting time trying to put Activision Blizzard's problems in the rearview mirror, announcing a labor neutrality agreement with the game maker's recently-formed union.

    Microsoft will be grappling with plenty of issues at Activision, including unfair labor lawsuits, sexual harassment allegations and toxic workplace claims. Activision subsidiary Raven Software, developers on the popular Call of Duty game series, recently voted to organize a union, which Activision entered into negotiations with only a few days ago.

    Microsoft and the Communication Workers of America (CWA), which represents Raven Software employees, issued a joint statement saying that the agreement is a ground-breaking one that "will benefit Microsoft and its employees, and create opportunities for innovation in the gaming sector." 

    Continue reading
  • Activision to begin union negotiations with workers from Raven Software
    Biz trying to clean up shop to close $68.7bn buyout by Microsoft

    Activision Blizzard is starting collective bargaining with quality-assurance workers at its game studio Raven Software, after they voted in favor of unionizing.

    The Californian video-game maker is currently trying to close the $68.7bn acquisition offer from Microsoft, and has promised to fix internal issues amid allegations of a toxic workplace culture that led to gender and race discrimination, as well as sexual harassment of employees.

    As Activision attempted to clean up its public image, the biz announced it would lay off 12 workers from Raven Software after a group of employees tried to form a union. Sixty staff members protested, staged a strike for five weeks, and sided with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) to obtain formal recognition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022