757
Amazon Says It Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, But Records Show It Hired Firms to Prevent Them From Unionizing (www.vice.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Amazon Says It Doesn't 'Employ' Drivers, But Records Show It Hired Firms to Prevent Them From Unionizing::Amazon spent $14.2 million total on anti-union consulting in 2022, filings with the Department of Labor show.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 3 years ago (30 children)

What's crazy is I hear unionization is usually more expensive to fight against, but these CEO's are essentially morally opposed to it. Every time I hear stories of these people their lives would have been so much easier and their businesses more profitable but they just cannot stand people unionizing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    They also have the option of not treating them like shit. Happy workers don’t usually want to unionize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    I’m a fairly happy employee and I want to unionize.

    I remember working through the Great Recession and I never want to take a 7 year pay cut again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Happy wasn’t the best word. Well taken care of employees who know their employers care don’t typically feel the need to unionize. In other words, it’s not going to be high on their priority list, nor is the risk of retaliation going to be worth it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    If you're in an environment that would retaliate against you for unionizing, you're not "well taken care of".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    Do you really know though? The point is, if you’re well compensated, have good work-life balance, treated well, have good people around and above you, the thought of unionizing isn’t likely to be that important to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    Yeah I do, just on the principle that an environment that retaliates against worker solidarity is an oppressive environment.

    It's similar to someone saying "can slaves be well taken care of by their owners?" Many people would say yes, but I would say no on principle. No matter how short the work day, no matter the benefits, months off every year, etc. I would say on principle that being owned means you're not well taken care of.

    The principle here being that sometimes "one" negative can be enough to mean you're not "well-taken care of".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    That’s not an appropriate comparison.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    There's a subset of people that anytime a comparison is made, where one situation is worse than the other, something happens where they become unable to understand the concept of a principle.

    It's like you recognize "hey, chattel slavery is worse than wage slavery!" (which is correct), and therefore there can be no principle applicable to both situations (incorrect).

    I assume it's that you're offended by the comparison, and the emotion gets the better of you, disallowing you from thinking clearly about it. I don't know what else it would be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (17 children)

    That’s weirdest part, at this point the hoops Amazon has jumped through vs how profitable of a company they are - it must be cheaper for them to just let people unionise and pay them more + give better conditions?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 3 years ago (16 children)

    Do you want to pay people more because they're better at their job or do you want to pay people more because they've been warming a chair longer than anyone else?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I really don't care to play "who deserves a minimum quality of life".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Reality doesn't care whether you care to play or not.

    There's a limited amount of resources, you can't hire everyone on Earth, you can't give everyone an unlimited salary. Everything past that you're making decisions as to who gets what.

    And by the way, if you make enough poor decisions eventually everyone loses their jobs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Agreed, there’s limited resources, that’s exactly why we can’t afford to waste any more on another CEO mega yacht or private plane. We’re capable of a post-scarcity society with just the setup we have today, were we to distribute resources on need rather than greed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    Or because people need more to make a living? The whole argument of "it's a shitty job and shouldn't be used to support you" doesn't really work anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 3 years ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Its a very true dichotomy.

    Hey let's hire Ashok for this position! He's really good!

    Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire but he has seniority so he gets first dibs on the job.

    Hey, let's give Ashok a raise! He's really good!

    Oops, sorry. Bob Whiteman has been here for 30 years. He's just good enough not to fire. It he's been here the longest so he gets paid the most.

    The false dichotomy is assuming your choices are a massive adversarial bureaucracy or not making a living wage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    "It's a very true dichotomy!"

    Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Found the guy who never worked a union job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Found the guy with the superiority complex mad that the union didn’t fall for their sucking up to the bosses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •