
Amazon Proves Infertile Soil for Unions, So Far - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/technology/amazon-proves-infertile-soil-for-unions-so-far.html?ref=business&_r=0
======
UnoriginalGuy
The US itself is an infertile landscape for unions. I guess that massive
corporate spending on anti-union propaganda is working.

You cannot talk about unions online effectively, Americans come out of the
woodwork with super strange anecdotes and pro-business rhetoric. Reminds me of
Israel-Palestine in that regard, as soon as the topic comes up things get
"strange."

When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for
the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate them
so much. In particular why poorer Americans hate them, which is an affront to
their own self interests.

~~~
pc86
> _When you grew up in a country where unions are healthy and working both for
> the employees and for the business, it is hard to see why Americans hate
> them so much._

Probably because most Americans (myself included) have never encountered a
union that works for both the employees and the business.

My working-class father, _twice_ , was working for a union and was forced to
stop working for strikes, unpaid. My parents nearly lost their house when I
was in elementary school because of it. One of those times the company
actually shut down.

> _You cannot talk about unions online effectively, Americans come out of the
> woodwork with super strange anecdotes and pro-business rhetoric._

Obviously America is more pro-business than most of Europe. But it seems odd
that you define talking about something "effectively" and not being challenged
on your opinions. I would argue it's hard (not impossible) to talk about
unions online effectively because Europeans come out of the woodwork with
super strange anecdotes and statements like a poor person disliking unions is
inherently against their own self interest.

~~~
themartorana
Both parents and wife are teachers, all are at odds with their unions, but are
still forced to pay dues to an organization they'd prefer not speak on their
behalf. I don't see much of a need for unions anymore (note: anymore - they
obviously hold a very important place in US history) as long as the government
is actively involved and enforcing things like OSHA. I am also strongly for
universal healthcare and maternity leave, to name a couple issues which would
solve a lot of what unions are in place for.

~~~
vidarh
> I don't see much of a need for unions anymore

I find this bizarre to hear, given that the US has pretty much the weakest
protections for workers of any developed country.

~~~
dkopi
The biggest protection a worker has is his ability to quit and find another
employer.

All other "protections" usually end up costing you someway or another.
Mandatory vacation days are converted to lower salaries. Maternity leave makes
it more difficult for young married women to find a job. Mandatory Insurances
and Pensions are simply calculated in to the "cost of employment", reducing
the actual salary. Not being able to fire a worker means much higher hiring
standards, and make it a lot more difficult for inexperienced workers to find
a job.

~~~
vidarh
> The biggest protection a worker has is his ability to quit and find another
> employer.

Which works out great for the top few percent of workers who are sufficient
sought after to be able to dictate terms. Not so great for the vast majority
that are easy to replace.

History has demonstrated pretty clearly that this is utter nonsense. Here's an
example of the type of things that motivated unionisation in the US:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)

146 people dead because employers at the time saw it as perfectly acceptable
to _lock people in_ to prevent unauthorised breaks.

The 8 hour working day too - it took about a century to get it widespread -
and numerous dead.

Frankly, that statement is deeply insulting to the more of the many people who
have died to secure the labour rights we have today.

> Mandatory vacation days are converted to lower salaries.

I've yet to work anywhere with mandatory vacation days in the sense that I can
not give them up. What I have always had, however, is the right to a certain
minimum number of days. Even in Norway, which from a US point of view probably
would seem quite extreme when it comes to the level of workers protections, if
I truly wanted to work more I generally would be able to give up most of my
vacation days.

The big difference is that the defaults in employment law in Norway provide
terms that people spent decades fighting for, and to deviate from that
requires explicit consideration. You can write a Norwegian employment contract
in about two paragraphs. In fact, most of my Norwegian employment contracts
were about that length.

But if you _want to_ , you can find ways of deviating most protections _as
long as your employee is willing to pay for it_.

As it happens, it turns out that most employees do not value "buying" fewer
vacation days or shorter notice periods, or other abrogations of established
workers rights, at nearly enough money for most of them to be willing to write
it into employment contracts.

The reality is that while you may be right that salaries could be higher
without some of these protections, they appear to be systematically valued
higher by employees than employers once employees have actually experienced
them.

> Maternity leave makes it more difficult for young married women to find a
> job.

Women leave employment in droves to have children whether or not they get paid
maternity leave, and as such I see little reason to believe that providing
right to maternity leave or paid maternity leave is likely to have a major
additional impact.

One of the reasons why so many women end up leaving the workforce, often for
good, on having children in many countries is that many can't afford
childcare.

E.g. I'm in the UK, and childcare for a single child here can easily reach
1000 pounds/month until your kids reach school age (with some recent
improvements in provision of part time government paid care). If you have a
two pre-school children with care costs like that, you need a salary well
above average before it is economical for both parents to work. Even if you
have cheaper options available some places, you need a relatively decent
paying job to be able to pay for child care for more than one child and have
anything left.

And this provides an easy solution to reducing the impact of maternity leave:
Provide more subsidised childcare. As it happens, that will tend to do more to
bring more women into employment than maternity leave does to counteract it.
In Norway, improvements to maternity pay/leave and childcare provisions have
always gone in near lock-step for exactly this reason (on top of that, there
has in recent years been a paternity leave provision to further reduce the
disparity).

> Mandatory Insurances and Pensions are simply calculated in to the "cost of
> employment", reducing the actual salary.

Mandatory insurances and pensions are not about workers protections per se
most places I'm aware of, but a side effect of welfare systems where the state
will ultimately pay for the welfare of those who don't make their own
contributions. This creates a strong public incentive for ensuring that as far
as possible people contribute to insurances when they are in employment, which
often makes employee contributions to things like pensions extremely tax
beneficial, and thus a central point of negotiations.

E.g. in the UK, the Conservative government has been one of the drivers for
more compulsory workplace pension plans as an explicit mechanism to shift more
of the pensions burden off the government and basically using it as a way of
undoing parts of the socialized nature of the UK pensions system.

> Not being able to fire a worker means much higher hiring standards, and make
> it a lot more difficult for inexperienced workers to find a job.

Not being able to fire a worker is not a common feature of workers protections
anywhere.

~~~
dkopi
> Which works out great for the top few percent of workers It works out for
> any worker.

It's not just about quitting Microsoft to Join google, It's also about
quitting Mcdonald's to join Subway, or quitting Amazon to work for Walmart.
The only workers who aren't able to quit a job are public sector workers,
where the government has a monopsony on hiring.

> I've yet to work anywhere with mandatory vacation days in the sense that I
> can not give them up In some countries you can give up your paid vacation
> days. At a cost to your employer who would have to PAY YOU additionally.
> These all add up as additional costs of employment, and simply reduce the
> salary you earn in the first place. (As compared to what you could earn if
> there weren't paid leave laws in place).

Do some workers and employers prefer a lower salary for more vacation days?
sure. Just agree on that as part of a contract. Don't force a one size fits
all solution on everyone.

> Women leave employment in droves to have children whether or not they get
> paid maternity leave I wasn't addressing that. I was explaining that in
> countries that have paid maternity leave, women might not even get employed
> (or only get employed for certain roles) in the first place.

> Mandatory insurances and pensions are not about workers protections per se
> most places I'm aware of. Take Israel as an example. Mandatory pensions are
> considered a "triumph" of the unions, who are able to strongarm employers in
> to paying more into worker's pensions: [http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-
> histadrut-employers-agree...](http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-histadrut-
> employers-agree-1-hike-in-pension-contributions-1001105859)

> Not being able to fire a worker is not a common feature of workers
> protections anywhere. It's never about "not being able to fire". It's about
> firing flexibility. Can an employer simply send you home, or do they have to
> go through lots of legal beuracracy first?

It's easy in Denmark:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/business/worldbusiness/the...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/business/worldbusiness/the-
workplace-firings-easy-in-denmark-so-is-hiring.html) But difficult in France
or Germany: [https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-its-impossible-to-
fire...](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-its-impossible-to-fire-someone-
in-France) [https://www.wbs-law.de/eng/doing-business-
germany/employment...](https://www.wbs-law.de/eng/doing-business-
germany/employment-law/german-employment-law-and-termination/)

The bottom line is that if it's difficult to fire someone, you'll be a lot
more picky and careful before hiring them.

~~~
marssaxman
> Do some workers and employers prefer a lower salary for more vacation days?
> sure. Just agree on that as part of a contract.

I've tried. It's never happened. I feel very cynical when I see all the oh-so-
earnest discussions about "negotiating" after getting a job offer, because
they all seem to assume that money is the only thing that matters, and that
one can get more of it just by asking for it. Negotiating over a job offer has
never gotten me jack squat, because American companies appear to be
universally stuck on the idea that vacation time ought to be a function of
seniority.

~~~
gozur88
For big companies it's probably no so much they don't want to do it as they
haven't set up their system such that they _can_ do it. Large corporations
want to see you as an interchangeable part, and anything that makes you less
like an interchangeable part is a headache they feel they can do without.

I work at a very large company. They have divisions with different salary
bands and benefits. When you move from one division to another it's like
moving to a brand new company. I _guarantee_ you if you negotiated extra
vacation at my company they would eventually transfer your business unit to
another division and you'd stop accruing the extra. HR would shrug and quote
you the corporate policy.

You're probably much better off working for a smaller place where the CEO was
involved in the salary negotiations.

~~~
marssaxman
That's been my experience with big companies entirely, which is another reason
I raise an eyebrow and silently call "bullshit" when I hear people earnestly
going on about the importance of negotiation. How the hell are you going to
negotiate when there is no chance you will meet anyone with the power to give
you what you want?

------
koolba
I'm not against unions, I'm against public sector unions.

Private sector unions can do whatever they want. Let them strike, collective
bargain, walk out, sit in. The damage is isolated, the dollars involved are
relegated to business owners and workers, and there's competition on both
sides of the equation.

Public sector unions are were the trouble is at. Government work stoppages[1]
are bullshit as are unfunded future concessions that will have to be paid by
our children's children.

[1]: _Yes we can all make jokes about how they 're not doing anything to start
but you know what I'm saying..._

~~~
riffraff
but then, how should public sector employees ask for better conditions?

I am not a fan of public service, but public sector unions seem to be
abstractly as reasonable as private ones.

~~~
koolba
> but then, how should public sector employees ask for better conditions?

The government already has to compete against the private sector. If wages
rise there, whether through union action or labor shortages, then government
will have to act accordingly. This works in the opposite direction as well
(lowering wages/costs).

The main issue is that the _current_ government does not have an interest in
long term planning. The current mayor/governor/steward is more than willing to
push the true costs of things down the road because they won't be around to
account for them. That's how you end up with massive unfunded pension
obligations.

Public sector unions are just one part of this problem albeit a big part.

~~~
riffraff
> The government already has to compete against the private sector

private companies compete against other private companies, by this reasoning
unions are not necessary in the private sector either.

Also, in some areas the government does not compete against the private
sector, I think. Don't police forces or firefighters have unions in the US?

------
ThomPete
Many Americans grow up with a rather biased view of unions and with good
reason.

Looking at the unions here in New York when it comes to construction you
quickly end up loathing the unions.

Instead of fighting for paid sick days, longer vacation, better healthcare for
their members they simply try to expand the number of members they have thus
delaying constructions, putting way too many people on the constructions
projects etc.

It's a shame because unions do have their time and place when the work is more
or less the same and salaries not too independent.

Wallmart employees could use a strong union. Uber could.

But the problem is that once you get into the territory of fluctuating
salaries for the same job and more individual employee/employer relationships
it's not so easy to establish a shared vision.

Denmark have a model[1] where the employee unions and the employer negotiate
minimum salaries, sick days etc. and where the government primarily is there
as a mediator.

It's working pretty good although it is showing to be less effective in the
more individually based job types I spoke about.

None the less. The US do need more unions but they have to be established
across companies to ensure agency.

[1] [https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/danish-labour-market-
mode...](https://danishbusinessauthority.dk/danish-labour-market-model)

------
seanalltogether
> “This is Amazon’s biggest fear,” said Andy Powell, a district organizer for
> the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers who is
> trying to organize Amazon fulfillment center workers in Delaware and several
> nearby states. “The minute one falls and people see they got a better deal,
> it’s going to be a cancer for them.”

That's a cynical way to phrase it. You'd think a union organizer would
describe their union like a medicine, not a cancer.

------
tn13
I hope it remains like that forever if Amazon has to give its services for
cheaper and cheaper prices.

I come from India which remains one of the most poorest countries and most of
the manufacturing sector remains underdeveloped thanks to Labor unions. That
evil should be kept out of USA. Cities like Kolkata which were once impotant
trading ports of the world is reduced to shit by union politics.

Teacher's union in USA remains the biggest reason why the public education is
in bad shape. Doctor's Union aka American Medical Association remains one of
the dominant reason why healthcare is expensive.

EDIT: Context.

------
known
I think
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world)
is apolitical and better than Unions

~~~
vidarh
Basic income is entirely orthogonal to unionisation.

------
ldehaan
"unions make companies more vulnerable to outsourcing" because outsourcing is
a a shark and unions cover you in blood?

the only thing that makes a company vulnerable to outsourcing is assholes in
management, uncaring, shortsighted, corrupt and uncaring assholes. that's it.

unions are for the people and inherently by the people, ffs, it's a
cooperative effort to run a company, but somehow people think it's the CEO and
the whatever-o that make the company what it is.

Companies that think this way, ultimately fail, or loose to companies that
treat their people better, unless they have regulatory capture or some other
government handout to corner the market, and this causes their employees to
realize that the company they work for is shit and maybe they need to form a
union to protect themselves from the psychopaths running the company.

~~~
pc86
Perhaps we could have a better discussion about the topic without calling
people assholes and psychopaths.

~~~
dang
Well put.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11706155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11706155)
and marked it off-topic.

