Amazon accused of singling out, harassing union organizers Amazon is running out of time to answer allegations from an American watchdog that it unlawfully suppressed labor organizers at one of its warehouses in New York. If unable to mount a defense against charges [PDF] from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the internet mega-corp will be forced to tear up its rules on …
Found the Amazon employee, or at the least the person who's swallowed the anti uinion garbage hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of angling times.
On average, unionised workers earn up to 15% more than non union workers do. They have better benefits and working conditions.
This costs a measly portion of that extra pay... say about 1% of it.
But you carry on believing the lies that companies try to spread, they don't want workers to have rights, they don't workers to have better pay, or breaks, or health plans... it affects the billions of dollars in profits they earn every year. They'll lie, cheat, steal and do anything to intimidate gullible works into believing that only they know what's best for their slaves... I mean employees... and what they want is... literal slaves.
On average, unionised workers earn up to 15% more than non union workers do.
Source? That's certainly never been my experience, those of us who resisted the union's recruitment attempts and negotiated our own conditions obtained consistently better packages than those hamstrung by collective bargaining.
Here's the first one I found from the economic policy institute,,, literally the first item at the top of the search page.
https://www.epi.org/press/union-workers-are-paid-11-2-more-and-have-greater-access-to-health-insurance-and-paid-sick-days-than-their-nonunion-counterparts-policymakers-must-strengthen-workers-ability-to-form-unions/
A quick breakdown.... in case you don't want to read... or can't read... or can read and can't comprehend.
Unionised workers (across all spectrums) earn on avg 11.2% more than non union workers.
Black unionised workers earn on avg 13.7% more than non union ones.
Hispanic unionised workers earn 20.1% more than non union ones.
White unionised workers earn on avg 8.1% more than non union ones (because they're already paid more than POC due to the inherent bias and racism in society as a whole)
94%% of unionised workers have better access to employer sponsored healthcare
91% of unionised workers have access to paid sick leave compared to 73%% of non union workers.
But sure... you keep spouting your anti union bull... you're either ignorant of the facts or a shill for some company trying to stop people standing up for themselves... or a basic white male who doesn't understand that he's already in a position of privilege vs his non white co-workers.
The fact you were in a position to negotiate anything with your employer means you're in a VERY luxury position where you can actually do that, the company is willing to listen to you AND that company wants to keep you badly enough to give you some of your demands.
When you're working for a company like Amazon (or any other mega corp at "worker drone" level) you don't get to negotiate. You don't get to even talk about your "package".You get a job for remuneration package X or you don't get a job. Then you'll do the job you're told to do and if you don't meet their ridiculous requirements, talk back or even look at your boss funny, you're fired and they'll find the next poor schmuck for way too few bucks an hour to do the grunt work.
That is exactly the situation where collective bargaining is the ONLY option, because the employer won't listen or even pay attention to the individual.
"those of us who resisted the union's recruitment attempts and negotiated our own conditions"
That is NOT an option for the vast majority of manual/hourly paid workers. They are too easily replaceable and thus have no power whatsoever without some sort of collective. Clearly you've never in your life been in that position or you'd know that. On a similar note, it seems pretty clear from past court cases and current evidence, that Amazon are not even respecting the current legal rights afforded all workers, let alone improving working conditions.
On average, unionised workers earn up to 15% more than non union workers do. They have better benefits and working conditions.
This is why unions exist (says Captain Obvious)
Corollary: If Amazon had fixed this (wage scale, benefits) without the unions being involved, there would be no discussion regarding unionization.
Amazon should be doing whatever they can NOW to get a favorable union contract and THEN just let them unionize.
Bingo. Workers wouldn't feel the urge to unionize, to form a collective bargaining agreement, if they didn't feel the need to bargain in the first place (says Captain Obvious!).
If workers are happy, workers are happy, and don't feel the need to rock the boat or raise their voices in collective frustration.
Amazon is [apparently] bringing this "woe" upon themselves. Go workers!
"Workers wouldn't feel the urge to unionize, to form a collective bargaining agreement, if they didn't feel the need to bargain in the first place (says Captain Obvious!)."
If you will not listen to reason, maybe you might listen to Wolfgang Grupp, Owner and CEO of Trigema in Germany. What he says is basically the same, he does not treat his workforce decently because he is a socialist but because he knows that this is the best way to keep productivity high and the unions out.
Comparing a machine building company i know with a unionized machine building company of similar size that i also know, the first one has no union binding/"Tarifvertrag/Tarifbindung" while the second has.
The first one descended from one of the first manufacturers of scissor lifting tables and suchlike to somewhere around the bottom of the list within a decade, losing premium customers like Airbus because workers disliked the idea that during said decade there was no raise at all and no qualification/training at all. Instead, christmas and vacation bonuses were stripped and overtime payments reduced.
The current wage difference for a comparable job is at around 30% difference, not including regular annual christmas bonuses and vacation bonuses nor including qualification measures and other benefits that will lead to progress for both workforce and company.
The first company has a 40 hour week, the second has a 38 hour week and still does better in each and every aspect - including profits - than the first.
Now guess which of the once comparable companies has been blessed with the best and most qualified workers from the other company and which of both has issues finding replacements for vacancies ?
It was awkward meeting my first love decades later as we'd trod different paths. I was an engineer, then activist, she was a scientist then small business owner. Not much in common until we discovered we both loathed Amazon. Why do you hate them? Workers rights, terms and conditions. Why do you hate them? Unfair business rates and taxes. Oh! The enemy of my enemy turned out to be my first love.
"targets" - then the "fridge moment" happened..
yeah about that - I'm guessing that efficiency experts focused on whip-cracking the warehouse employees by increasing their 'targets' rather than finding ways to make it POSSIBLE for a non-stressed non-whipped employee to just naturally get things done more quickly...
(then the urinal analogy becomes even more appropriate)
It makes sure businesses can't target people for reading (or even just daring to stand still in front of) those notices. It makes it so that everyone will have an excuse to read the notice uninterrupted and unobserved.
(Iirc it came after it was found that businesses tended to post such "unfavourable" things in high traffic area's where people couldn't actually stop to read any of it, or post them in extremely low traffic areas where no-one ever ventured (and if they did, their boss would know they read the notice and would thus know to find any and all excuse to fire them).
I worked at Google for a time, and they didn't put notices in the bathrooms, but they did put up monthly... periodicals I guess... A one page sheet about how someone solved a particular problem. It would be a simple matter to swap that out with some kind of anti-union propaganda sheet.
Why would training supervisors in employee rights be the big win for the workers?
Is there anything that stops the supervisors from enforcing Amazon rules that violate workers rights but can only be applied if it can be proven the supervisors knew the rules?
Does the law maxim "ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law does not excuse) not apply to supervisors ignoring workers rights?
As a former manager myself, I think the value is twofold:
1. Training supervisory staff in workers' rights removes the fig leaf of ignorance. Without training, the line supervisors can just point at company policy and say they were following it. With training, including the understanding that workers' legal rights trump company policy, individual supervisors can be held accountable for actions which violate employee rights, which in turn creates an incentive to respect and protect those rights.
2. This kind of training can build a sense of empathy in the supervisory staff for their workers. In theory, it should help the supervisors and managers be more aware of the human needs of their staff and thus be less likely to treat them as disposable cogs. Of course, this outcome is precisely what senior management at Amazon probably wants to avoid because it can decrease short-term efficiency by enabling workers to do things like urinate or eat. The workers will be laughing out the other sides of their faces when they're replaced by robots, let me tell you!
Quote
" Training supervisory staff in workers' rights removes the fig leaf of ignorance. Without training, the line supervisors can just point at company policy and say they were following it. With training, including the understanding that workers' legal rights trump company policy, individual supervisors can be held accountable for actions which violate employee rights, which in turn creates an incentive to respect and protect those rights"
In other words, when the C-level PHBs give directives to 'improve' productivity and the supervisors comply with C-level demands, then the C-level PHB have someone to blame and fire when the workers try and sue the company.
"In other words, when the C-level PHBs give directives to 'improve' productivity and the supervisors comply with C-level demands, then the C-level PHB have someone to blame and fire when the workers try and sue the company."
Certainly one possible outcome, unfortunately. On the flip side, it gives line managers a justification for pushing back on unreasonable management demands on behalf of their staff. It also theoretically enables whistleblowers.
Shitty management will always find ways to be shitty, but letting staff and line management know what their rights and options are can at least try to reduce the shittiness.
Been there, done that...
Anti-union is in American corporate DNA. There are any number of consulting firms that will help the corporation out if its troubled by potential unionization. No trick is too dirty, no tactic too low. Unions must be fought at all costs. Historically, that cost has been in lives at times (when we do security around a workplace we bring in armed security, sometimes they get a bit exuberant.....you kow how it is....check out "Matewan")
Why corporations have this fear of unions is anyone's guess. Unions are only adverserial if you try and screw the workforce too badly, normally everyone just wants to get on with the job and earn a paycheck.
"Unions are only adversarial if you try and screw the workforce too badly"
And there's your problem. American corporate DNA is inextricably bound to the bottom line. Without a union Amazon (or any big corporation) can pay its workers less, give them fewer benefits, and fire them more easily. Of course C-suites are going to work against unions, even when it's illegal. And most shareholders only care if the NLRB rulings affect the stock price.
BTW, the Tolpuddle Martyrs mentioned in the post you were replying to wouldn't make Wikipedia's list of anti-union violence in the US. You need to be shot or killed and Wikipedia has (literally) hundreds of entries that qualify.
Historically, American unions were inextricably bound to both Organized Crime and disorganized crime: the garment worker union organizers in NYC were union thugs one day, and small-business employers the next, and organized crime ran the unions as cover for protection racketeering, theft and money laundering.
And unionized construction workers and transport workers both enforced job rules that required payment and presence of non-working members: the empty trucks and the 'elevator operators' on automatic elevators being obvious examples.
The historic criminality of union operations in the USA poisons every attempt at unionization, and from both sides: the bosses and the worker equally don't want to deal with it.
It's not the only feature of American unionization, but any analysis has to include it.
I'm betting Amazon is probably spending more on their anti-union efforts than they would ever "save" by not having a union. Add to that how Amazon's own internal research suggests that they're expecting to run out of people who are willing to work in their fulfillment centers after years of treating people like disposable cogs, and a union might actually SAVE Amazon.
Rule 1 - In order to maximize the profits for our dear Leader, the prime directive is to keep the plebs in their place. They are to be actively dissuaded from organising any form of trade association.
Rule 2 - To support rule 1, workers are to be paid the minimum wage or below if possible.
Rule 3 - There is no rule 3.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
